Judicial Committee Gives FBI The First OK It Needs To Hack Any Computer, Anywhere On The Planet

from the the-world-is-yours dept

The FBI and DOJ are one step closer to having one of their "keeping up with the digital Joneses" requests granted. While the default phone encryption offered by Apple (and at some point in the future by Google) still remains free of law enforcement/intelligence "Golden Backdoors," the agencies are one step closer to being legally permitted to hack nearly any computer in the world.

A judicial advisory panel Monday quietly approved a rule change that will broaden the FBI's hacking authority despite fears raised by Google that the amended language represents a "monumental" constitutional concern.

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted 11-1 to modify an arcane federal rule to allow judges more flexibility in how they approve search warrants for electronic data, according to a Justice Department spokesman.

No longer bound by physical jurisdictions, the FBI will be able to perform remote searches all over the globe. This is its "21st century" fix -- a permission slip to implant malicious software in any computer, located anywhere, in order to track suspected criminals. That performing these actions may strain international relationships or break local laws is just the acceptable collateral damage inherent to modern-day crimefighting.

There's still plenty of time left before it goes into effect, and several chances that this rule change might be found to be just as potentially damaging -- both to the Fourth Amendment and rights of citizens in other nations -- as tech companies and privacy advocates are portraying it.

The judicial advisory committee's vote is only the first of several stamps of approval required within the federal judicial branch before the the rule change can formally take place—a process that will likely take over a year. The proposal is now subject to review by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which normally can approve amendments at its June meeting. The Judicial Conference is next in line to approve the rule, a move that would likely occur in September.

The Supreme Court would have until May 1, 2016 to review and accept the amendment, which Congress would then have seven months to reject, modify or defer. Absent any congressional action, the rule would take place on Dec. 1, 2016.

While the fight against the rule change will continue, its procession through the next couple of steps will likely be as quiet as its passage by the judicial advisory panel. Those in the position to shut this down are going to find it hard to argue against law enforcement and national security talking points.

Any light shed on "arcane" federal rules and laws should throw a bit on other outdated pieces of legislation, like the CFAA or the Stored Communications Act, which are more in need of an update than Rule 41. Of course, the DOJ likes those the way they are, what with their broad language and deference to law enforcement. Rather than bring American citizens "up to date" with fixes to those bad laws, we'll likely instead receive expanded government power with no corresponding bump for the governed. And as for the rest of the world -- it will be playing by our rules, whether it wants to or not.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, hacking, judicial conference, judicial conference advisory committee, overseas computers, rule 41
Companies: apple, google

Judges Want To Make Life Harder On Patent Trolls: Want Them To Actually Have To Explain What Infringement Happened

from the twiqbal dept

I'd missed this one, but Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing points our attention to the fact that, last month, the Judicial Conference voted to make a little-noticed change in patent lawsuits that should serve to make life more difficult for patent trolls. The details here are more complex than necessary, but the short version is that, under current rules, to file a patent infringement case, the initial complaint can be almost entirely bare bones: basically naming the plaintiff, defendant, patent and saying there's infringement, but providing no real details on the infringement. That aids patent trolls, who often will file questionable lawsuits without even telling the defendant where the infringement occurs -- leading defendants to have to go into the case a bit blind, and making it more appealing to just settle.

A key part of the patent reform proposal that everyone thought was going to happen earlier this year was to change those rules to require the patent holder to have to actually explain where the infringement occurred -- basically inching up the bar to filing a patent lawsuit. Then the trial lawyers came in and killed patent reform dead with a call to Senator Harry Reid. However, it looks like the courts may want to take this matter into their own hands. The Judicial Conference sets the rules by which the courts work under, and it appears that it's basically decided to implement this change in rules (bringing patent lawsuits more in line with most regular lawsuits) anyway, no matter what happens with Congress, though the Supreme Court needs to approve first. Given the way the Supreme Court has handled patent cases lately, it would be surprising if they had a problem with this particular change.

Slowly, but surely, it looks like the courts themselves are chipping away at the setup that makes patent trolling so profitable.

Filed Under: claims, judicial conference, patent reform, patent trolls, patents